Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by ngchunter
Space has no temperature, only matter can have temperature. Matter in space has a temperature dictated by the thermal properties of that particular
When calculating the temperature in space, it is important to understand that most estimates must take into account the varied makeup of space.
Quote mining fail. Notice how even your own source talks about the varied makeup of "space" - what it is talking about isn't space itself, it's
talking about the interstellar medium within space. Space has no temperature, only material in space has a temperature, and that temperature depends
on the thermal properties of the material or element you're measuring, even your own source points this out. Your source takes an average of all the
atoms between stars, excludes stars and planets, and calls that the "temperature of space." It's not space itself, it's just an averaging of a
subset of atoms. Space itself is the vacuum, the atoms within it are part of something else, whether it be the interstellar or intergalactic medium,
or the heliosphere, or even a body like an asteroid or planetoid.
We are digressing though. Your assertion that a hot gas would not expand in either space or a less dense medium is a CROCK,
Excuse me, stop putting words in my mouth. Where did I say it wouldn't expand? I asked you before to show me where I said that and you haven't
shown me that quote (because it doesn't exist). I said it would follow the trajectory it has when it leaves the nozzle, which is exactly what it
will do, but that doesn't mean it won't "expand," it means it won't billow. Of course it will expand outward as the trajectories of each gas
particle are not perfectly parallel, but as I said, it will not billow against other gases because the atmosphere at that altitude is small enough to
be ignored in the circumstances we're working with here, namely a dynamic pressure on an order of 10^-5 atmospheres. I never, ever said the words
"it will not expand." Prove me wrong.
So in other words you don't want to consider the density of the atmosphere where the "failure" occurred.
I already did, I quoted it. Now you're ignoring it. You don't want to admit that 10^-5 atm is too low to matter; vacuum chambers in a lab on earth
don't often do better than that:
10 Pa ~ 9x10^-5 atm
See? I considered it, it's IRRELEVANT.
Equal and opposite reaction genius.
Has nothing to do with the fact that the pressure within the suit provides the force for the gas to leave. The opposite reaction will be a thrust
against the astronaut equal to the force of the escaping gas. Tell me where the vacuum is doing working in that equation.
You have obviously NEVER had a physics class.
Actually I've had plenty of physics classes in college. But I'm not the one who is arguing that the vacuum is doing work.
Seriously, I don't even want to debate this with you, because it's THAT asinine.
I'm sure you don't. See above.
Uh, why the hell else would I be responding to you?
LOL, you won't admit that you're putting words in my mouth so this is your comeback? I'm not going to speculate on why you're insisting on
putting words in my mouth I never said, but it wouldn't be the first time a person online used a straw man technique. Some like to troll, others
made a mistake, still others think it's a valid way to get a point across.
I said if this was really a gas released by the rocket, it would have expanded like you see in all the other rocket failure videos, and then you
started attacking me for saying that.
You described it doing a lot of things it wouldn't do because you assumed the surrounding atmosphere was significant enough to matter. It's not.
Perhaps you should read how I originally responded to you again and show me where I said it wouldn't expand.
[edit on 20-12-2009 by ngchunter]